THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. HERSON MAGHANOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Maghanoy

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Herson Maghanoy, a constable second class of the Philippine Constabulary, who after a drinking spree went on what the Court itself calls an orgy of killing, leaving four dead and one wounded in his drunken trail. He was convicted by the trial court on three separate charges and appealed to the Supreme Court, asking to be exonerated on the ground that he is innocent. The case matters for the Bar because it is a compact review of several doctrines at once: the deference owed to the factual findings of the trial court, the requisites of evident premeditation and treachery, the complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, and the rule that the right to a preliminary investigation is waived by inaction.

Procedural History

Maghanoy was charged in three separate informations: one for the murders of Raul Montante and Dominador Bartolome, one for the murders of Daniel Baguio and Benito Pacañot, and one for the frustrated murder of Reynante Sabelino. He was convicted on all counts by Judge Eutropio Migriño of the Court of First Instance of Agusan del Sur. Before his appeal could prosper, he filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court asking for a rehearing of the case, and that petition was dismissed for lack of merit. He then appealed the judgment of conviction to the Supreme Court, which decided the case in December 1989.

Facts

In the evening of July 11, 1978, in San Francisco, Agusan del Sur, Maghanoy had been drinking beer with Philippine Constabulary trainee Dominador Bartolome since three o'clock in the afternoon. By seven o'clock he was totally inebriated and began throwing benches in the public market. Sergeant Carlos Martinez, who was nearby, identified himself as a peace officer and tried to pacify him. Maghanoy lunged at him instead, and Martinez boxed him and forced him to withdraw, apparently subdued.

But the incident did not end there. Maghanoy and Bartolome took a motorcab to the Philippine Constabulary barracks in Prosperidad, got their armalite rifles, and on the way back fired three rounds as if to announce hostilities, then three more upon arrival shortly before eight o'clock. Bartolome went inside the store and came out with Gavino Montante. Meanwhile, four peace officers on duty as security guards of the market, who had heard the shots, approached to investigate. As they faced Maghanoy, he handed one of his two rifles to Bartolome, then suddenly pointed his rifle at the four peace officers and shouted, do not move. Bartolome tried to deflect the rifle and Maghanoy fired, hitting both Bartolome and Patrolman Montante. Montante died that same night with five bullet wounds and Bartolome expired the following day with three.

From the store, Maghanoy proceeded to the national road leading to Barobo, Surigao del Sur, where he met Reynante Sabelino, Daniel Baguio, and Benito Pacañot on their way home. He reloaded his rifle, watched them come close, and without warning opened fire, felling all three. As they moaned in pain, Baguio and Pacañot were shot several more times until they died. Sabelino was hit only in the left thigh and crawled to a nearby ricefield where he hid until the police found him. Maghanoy hid for three days until he was apprehended on July 14, 1978, on board a passenger jeep, where he had identified himself to a policeman as Sergeant Fernandez.

Issues

• Whether or not the factual findings of the trial court, including its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, should be affirmed on appeal.
• Whether or not the defense of denial and frame-up, and the failure of the prosecution to present the armalite rifle and the pedicab driver, should acquit the accused.
• Whether or not the accused forfeited his right to a preliminary investigation by his inaction.
• Whether or not the killings of Bartolome and Montante were attended by treachery, or by evident premeditation qualifying them to murder.
• Whether or not the killing of Baguio and Pacañot and the wounding of Sabelino constitute a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

Applicable Provisions

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Act Number 4000, defines the complex crime and provides:

ART. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. (As amended by Act No. 4000.)

This provision governs the second group of victims, because the deaths of Baguio and Pacañot and the wounding of Sabelino resulted from one single act of the accused.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court affirmed the trial court. The rule is that the factual findings of the trial court, including the assessment of the testimony of each witness whom it is able to observe on the stand, are entitled to acceptance on appeal in the absence of a showing that they are arbitrary and without basis, and there was no such showing. The prosecution witnesses were consistent and credible, with no motive to testify against Maghanoy, while his own defense was conjectural and improbable.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the defense of denial and frame-up as palpably false. The autopsy findings contradicted his story that Montante killed Bartolome with a single shot and that Bartolome killed Montante with three shots, since Bartolome had three bullet wounds and Montante had five. The post-mortem report also showed that Baguio and Pacañot were shot while already lying on their backs, proving they were killed deliberately when helpless on the ground. As to the missing armalite rifle and the pedicab driver, the prosecution was under no obligation to present them; if the defense thought they would serve its cause, it could have compelled their production, and it did not.

On the third issue, the Court held that the right to a preliminary investigation had been forfeited by inaction. The fiscal's office twice advised the accused to submit counter-affidavits and he twice failed or refused to do so. He never objected to the lack of a preliminary investigation, did not raise it in his demurrer to the evidence, and did not mention it in his petition for certiorari.

On the fourth issue, the Court agreed with the trial court that treachery did not attend the killing of Bartolome and Montante, because they had been warned and should not have been taken by surprise. But the Court found a circumstance the trial court had missed: after being boxed by Martinez, Maghanoy went to the barracks to get his rifle and returned to the market firing shots on the way and upon arrival. This showed he was bent on revenge and had sufficient time to plan how to carry it out and to ponder its consequences. That was evident premeditation, qualifying the killings to murder, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each.

On the fifth issue, the Court approved the ruling that the shooting of the other three victims should have been prosecuted under one information pursuant to Article 48. As their deaths and the wounding resulted from one single act, the penalty for the more serious offense, murder, was imposed in its maximum period, but since the death penalty is no longer permitted, it was reduced to reclusion perpetua.

Doctrine

First, the factual findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are binding on appeal absent a showing that they are arbitrary and without basis. Second, denial and frame-up are weak defenses that cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimony of prosecution witnesses. Third, the right to a preliminary investigation is not perpetual; it is forfeited by inaction and cannot be invoked for the first time on appeal. Fourth, evident premeditation requires that the offender had time to plan and to reflect on the consequences of his act, and it qualifies a killing to murder. Fifth, when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, Article 48 requires one prosecution and the imposition of the penalty for the most serious crime in its maximum period.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed decision as modified, convicting Maghanoy of two murders and of the complex crime of double murder and frustrated murder, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua on all counts, and increasing the civil indemnity for each of the four victims to 30,000 pesos.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that guns and alcohol do not mix, and that a peace officer who turns his weapon against the very persons he is sworn to protect deserves the full measure of the law. Examiners like to use this case for the complex crime rule under Article 48, for the distinction between treachery and evident premeditation, and for the waiver of the right to a preliminary investigation by inaction.